The "Michael Clayton" Movie (spoilers)

[Zevico]

So I watched this a few weeks back. For the most part it seemed well acted and written, but my Dad pointed an inconsistency which I quite agree with.
What motivation does the general in house counsel actually have for arranging the death of both Michael and the other lawyer?
Let's assume you have someone else in her place--call her cold, ruthless lawyer X. X is the general in house counsel for a big company. That means that if the company fails, X is pretty much guaranteed a nice lawyering job somewhere. Surely you're an amazing lawyer once you reach "general in house counsel" for the massive company in question. So she, as removed from the company, has no motive for killing either of these lawyers. She gains money--but frankly she can get money anywhere, and tons of it. So essentially what this movie says is that the in house counsel for the fictional corporation in question is STUPIDLY greedy. Which would make it almost impossible for her to rise through the ranks. People pick that sort of thing out rather well.
The other possibility is loyalty to her company. Well, wow. That's just ludicrous. If so the 'message' of the movie is that people are willing to kill 'for the good of the company', even when they gain no actual benefit from it or where there is incredible risk (i.e. contract killing).
My only real question is whether there have been documents like the one presented in the movie in real life--i.e. ones which pretty much admit that the product in question is dangerous and will kill, but will be sold to the public regardless. Have there been such cases in the past?

[GePap]

Recall that she got to where she got because of her mentor, the previous General Counsel, who was then made CEO. She owed him her position and status. He signed the memo basically stating that he knew that product to be unsafe. Burying the memo protected not only the company, but the CEO himself.

Also, while in theory a lawyer for a big corporation might just be able to move on, the issue was still a multi-billion dollar lawsuit on her watch. Having that document come out would have meant certain defeat for her. If it was possible for her just to go away, what is the issue?

In short, her actions were not based on personal financial gains, but on protecting her status and the status of her mentor. Pride is as big a motivator as greed.

[Zevico]

Recall that she got to where she got because of her mentor, the previous General Counsel, who was then made CEO. She owed him her position and status. He signed the memo basically stating that he knew that product to be unsafe. Burying the memo protected not only the company, but the CEO himself.

Personal loyalty? She's willing to *kill* for this guy without his knowing just to protect him? That sounds possible, in an obsessive, stalker sort of way. But it's also incredibly unlikely.
Also, for a lawyer, having a document like that doesn't really mean much apart from the fact that your boss is mentally retarded for having signed it. I know this isn't your point, but again--no firm would turn her away for it.
As to pride? Well, then the message of the movie is once again somewhat ludicrous: Sociopaths (not just Sociopaths but INCREDIBLY STUPID sociopaths) rule corporations and are willing to kill for status and pride. It's possible; maybe it's happened once or twice. But to paint a picture of corporate America as being typified by such acts or a general sliminess (as this movie more or less implies) is ridiculous.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Zevico

Personal loyalty? She's willing to *kill* for this guy without his knowing just to protect him? That sounds possible, in an obsessive, stalker sort of way. But it's also incredibly unlikely.

Why? read the newspaper, stories about murder, and you will see how rational forethought is rarely up in front.

Also, for a lawyer, having a document like that doesn't really mean much apart from the fact that your boss is mentally retarded for having signed it. I know this isn't your point, but again--no firm would turn her away for it.
As to pride? Well, then the message of the movie is once again somewhat ludicrous: Sociopaths (not just Sociopaths but INCREDIBLY STUPID sociopaths) rule corporations and are willing to kill for status and pride. It's possible; maybe it's happened once or twice. But to paint a picture of corporate America as being typified by such acts or a general sliminess (as this movie more or less implies) is ridiculous.

What are you talking about?

Swinton's character is most certainly NOT a sociopath. She obviously feels immense remorse and dread about her actions, which a sociopath would not.

The picture of corporate America that is painted is a corporation willing to put a product out there that they knew could be harmful, because it would still make them money. Just look at the Pinto to see how true that is.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I think the original plan was to kill Arthur, because he was in possession of documents that would implicate their CEO and entire corporation, and that he was dangerously unstable and unreliable.

Also, I suppose you could say that a covert killing of Arthur is less likely to make waves because he has a history of mental instability and the means they use (pumping him full of the drugs he was taking, then leaving pills scattered around) at least makes logical sense.

The assassination doesn't extend to Michael Clayton until he happens upon Arthur's room, bypassing the police tape. At that point, the ball is rolling and Swinton simply doesn't have any choice left. If Clayton knows it was an assassination, or if the information that should have died with Arthur gets out through Clayton, then she still has all the old problems pre-assassination. She has to silence Clayton somehow, now that the stakes are even higher.

[DAVOUT]

But to paint a picture of corporate America as being typified by such acts or a general sliminess (as this movie more or less implies) is ridiculous.

Not so ridiculous.
I have seen the movie last Sunday night and tried to discover the point of the O.P.. The woman was terribly dependant from her boss, and her nervousness shown during the interview shows that she was professionally unsecured; she is likely to have exceeded her level of competence. Beyond that kind of debt the most often used power of influence is stock options. When promoted to his first top management job, an executive receiving an enormous number of stock options becomes totally dependant from the company, and extremely rare are those who are prepared to lose that because they disagree with the CEO. The Enron affair has revealed the whistleblowers destroying their career in denouncing misconducts of the company.
In conclusion, from what I know, the motivation was made of 10% loyalty to her boss, 50% of professional insecurity and 40 % of greediness.

[Arrian]

My only real question is whether there have been documents like the one presented in the movie in real life--i.e. ones which pretty much admit that the product in question is dangerous and will kill, but will be sold to the public regardless. Have there been such cases in the past?

Yeah.

There are also "smoking gun" memos and whatnot that pop up in the context of my job. I wasn't involved in the case in any way, but there was a case in NJ... Morton International, regarding mercury pollution. In the course of the litigation, a memo came out wherein some VP of the company essentially said "we are putting out 10x the mercury we're allowed to by the government. We need to stop this." Years later the levels had risen, IIRC, proving the VP was ignored.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Isn't the 1st rule of law school to never put anything like that on paper?

[Arrian]

Oh yeah, poor form that. But it happens.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Found it:

We are discharging mercury at a rate which we cannot measure precisely, but which has been estimated by the F.W.Q.A. [Federal Water Quality Administration] at 4.2 lbs./day (55 GPM total discharge, averaged over 24 hours, 7 PPM mercury content). The preliminary standard which the F.W.Q.A. appears to be accepting from other mercury users is a maximum of 0.5 lbs./day, which we definitely exceed . . . . Ventron has already suffered adverse publicity because of alleged mercury discharges, and we will certainly receive more if we do not institute controls approved by the F.W.Q.A. While the current furor over [**904] mercury pollution undoubtedly contains much exaggeration and misinformation, it is unquestionably a toxic substance, and as such we are under a moral obligation, as well as an impending legal one, to effectively control the mercury effluent from our processes.

-Arrian

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Isn't the 1st rule of law school to never put anything like that on paper?

Interesting. There are law schools offering courses "how misconducts must be properly achieved"?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Arrian
Found it:



-Arrian

The VP did not disclosed a secret since it was discovered by an official controlling authority. He just did his job.
Often in the business we are obliged to put important informations in writing if you want the people in power to react; as long as it is not send outside, it is correct. This is not blackmail either, it is just an appropriate threat.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Isn't the 1st rule of law school to never put anything like that on paper?

Not quite. First rule of law school is to disclose that information. FRCP Rule 26 concerning duty to disclose during discovery.

Assuming for policy purposes that this is done correctly, the two sides will have all the pertinent information they need and their case may indeed never need to go to court if they settle based on it. (As actually happened here.)

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


The VP did not disclosed a secret since it was discovered by an official controlling authority. He just did his job.
Often in the business we are obliged to put important informations in writing if you want the people in power to react; as long as it is not send outside, it is correct. This is not blackmail either, it is just an appropriate threat.

I know. It's not the same as a memo saying "Hey, our widget causes cancer. Don't tell anybody!" The NJDEP had been testing the plant effluent and the VP was simply discussing the sample results and their obvious import.

It was a fairly damning document, though, in the context of that case, since the company never did manage to get the mercury dischange down anywhere near the levels considered to be safe/acceptable. Instead, they closed the plant and sold it to a developer, who built a warehouse or somesuch on the site. The developer knew he was buying a site that had been a producer of mercury, but Morton (then Vesicol, IIRC) didn't exactly go out of its way to explain just how contaminated the area was. The developer then proceeded to make things worse (by stirring some things up).

-Arrian